The court emphasized that anticipatory bail considerations include the nature of the offence and the necessity for custodial interrogation, requiring more than mere assertions from the State.

O R D E R

This bail application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNS S ’). 2. Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.913 of 2025 of Pala Police Station, Kottayam, registered for the offences punishable under Section s 331 (4) and 605(a) r/w Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ ’). During the course of investigation, the offence under Section 3 17(2) of has also been incorporated.

3. According to the prosecution, the first accused, who is the husband of the petitioner, had trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and committed theft of a gold chain weighing 1.5 sovereigns worn by the de facto complainant and another gold chain worn by the minor daughter of the de facto complainant and thereafter handed over one of the gold chains to the second accused, who in turn sold it to a jewellery and thereby the accused committed the offences alleged.

4. I have heard Sri.T.Madhu., the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been falsely arrayed as an accused and that she has no involvement in the alleged crime.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that her custodial interrogation is necessary.

7. The first accused had committed theft of two gold chains after trespassing into the house of the de facto complainant. One of the gold chains was handed over to the petitioner, who is none other than his wife. Immediately thereafter, petitioner allegedly sold the said gold chain to a jewellery shop at Adimali. The said gold jewellery has already been recovered pursuant to the arrest of the first accused. The second gold chain however has not been recovered. The prosecution has no case for the time being that petitioner had received the second gold chain and what was handed over to the petitioner was the gold chain that has already been recovered.

8. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 (5)

SCC 1, it was held that while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case. Grant of anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of conditions to be imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on facts of each case, and subject to the discretion of the court.

9. In Ashok Kumar v. Union Territory of Chandigarh [ 2024 SCC OnLine SC 274 ], it has been held that a mere assertion on the part of the State while opposing the plea for anticipatory bail that custodial interrogation is required would not be sufficient and that the State would have to show or indicate more than prima facie case as to why custodial interrogation of the accused is required for the purpose of investigation.

10. Though the allegations are serious and petitioner prima facie has received a gold chain knowing it to be a stolen property, considering the circumstance that the petitioner is a lady and the gold chain handed over to her has already been recovered, I am of the view that petitioner can be protected with an order of pre-arrest bail on conditions.

Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on

08.08.2025 and shall subject herself to interrogation.

(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, then, she shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with